| Literature DB >> 33936474 |
Anna Ostropolets1, Christian Reich2, Patrick Ryan1,3, Chunhua Weng1, Anthony Molinaro3, Frank DeFalco3, Jitendra Jonnagaddala4, Siaw-Teng Liaw4, Hokyun Jeon5, Rae Woong Park5, Matthew E Spotnitz1, Karthik Natarajan1, George Argyriou2, Kristin Kostka2, Robert Miller6, Andrew Williams6, Evan Minty7, Jose Posada8, George Hripcsak1,9.
Abstract
Multi-center observational studies require recognition and reconciliation of differences in patient representations arising from underlying populations, disparate coding practices and specifics of data capture. This leads to different granularity or detail of concepts representing the clinical facts. For researchers studying certain populations of interest, it is important to ensure that concepts at the right level are used for the definition of these populations. We studied the granularity of concepts within 22 data sources in the OHDSI network and calculated a composite granularity score for each dataset. Three alternative SNOMED-based approaches for such score showed consistency in classifying data sources into three levels of granularity (low, moderate and high), which correlated with the provenance of data and country of origin. However, they performed unsatisfactorily in ordering data sources within these groups and showed inconsistency for small data sources. Further studies on examining approaches to data source granularity are needed. ©2020 AMIA - All rights reserved.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33936474 PMCID: PMC8075504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc ISSN: 1559-4076